Hmmm so someone who is “head for CM teaching and research” and someone who “established the Aus Ctr for CM Education and Research” don’t “know much about it” and aren’t qualified to do the review? Who is then?
-
-
Replying to @auscandoc @GidMK and
I would trust Rachel Roberts. Robert Mathie. Peter Fisher (god rest his soul). Alex Tournier. Michael Frass. All people with, you know, expertise in the subject. And who would not make such catastrophically poor choices.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
So I think we’d be all grateful if you would link us to their systematic review of the effectiveness of Homeopathy. Again, just so I’m clear, it is your position that only Homeopaths are qualified to do a review of this sort?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @auscandoc @GidMK and
But they have indeed done a series of such reviews on Homeopathy? Have you not heard of them? Probably not, since they found Randomised Placebo controlled individualized trials were, in fact, positive, overall. Skeptic media has no interest in amplifying that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
As mentioned: we’d be happy to see them.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @auscandoc @GidMK and
Ah yes, I forgot, your incompetence at search. You may not, not published in your favorite Vanity Journal. And Mathis is not a Homeopathy. He's a psychological researcher, if I recall.…https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2046-4053-3-142 …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Thanks for this but the conclusion bothers me "The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation.”
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @auscandoc @GidMK and
Why does that bother you. It's a caveat, which is nearly universal in good science. And not a deception like the aforementioned NHMRC trash
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DrPaulND @auscandoc and
Lol. That review found not a single study they felt confident in assigning a low risk of bias. The realistic conclusion from such research is that the current evidence is not consistent enough to make a conclusion
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Coupled with the otherwise overwhelming evidence against homeopathy, I'd say it's fair to conclude that a reasonable judgement is that individualized homeopathy is as ineffective as any other kind
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I'd also question quite a few elements of the study - just one point, pooling odds ratios for mostly continuous data is not a good idea. Much more reasonably to use a weighted mean difference where possible, especially as most outcome data (i.e. pain level) is continuous
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @auscandoc and
Well alas, I cannot speak to that. Only that this data, and analysis, flawed as it is, is still the best on the subject we have, and still points, tentatively, to a beyond placebo effect. If you have a superior analysis with superior methods, I would see it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DrPaulND @auscandoc and
Sorry, just to clarify - you consider this the best analysis but aren't aware of the drawbacks of the methodology? On what basis did you make that assessment?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.